In "The Attack Ad's Second Life," Leslie Savan and I examined the idea that the newfound ease of video production and distribution will kill off the negative election ad. Are the days of Willie Horton and "Haroldcall me" over? Are we headed into an unregulated, bottomless pit of "macaca" moments on-demand and YouTube mash-ups? Advertising Age columnist and On the Media Host Bob Garfield thinks that TV ads are definitely on the way outand that's a good thing: "Nobody is going to opt in to see somebody's legislative votes misrepresented in an attack adbecause why would you?" Yet that's not to say that TV ads won't play a role in 2008, or that they won't be as lowdown and dirty as ever.

And now, a new Supreme Court ruling virtually ensures that that will be the case. In another 5-4 decision, the court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law that prohibited pre-election ads paid for by unions or corporations. The majority ruled that such ads can not be banned unless they explicitly encourage voters to vote for or against a candidate. This will no doubt open the floodgates for a new slew of "issue ads"attack ads that not so subtly go after candidates under the guise of informing voters. What this really meansfor online fundraising, for swing voters, for the future of McCain-Feingoldremains to be seen. But it seems clear that even if the 2008 race is the TV attack ad's death rattle, its demise will be anything but pretty.